CIT vs. GS PHARMBUTOR PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

8. Receipt of the show cause notice dated 15.10.2010 was acknowledged by the appellant‘s Advocates through their letter dated 26.10.2010 through which they also requested for further information in order to enable them to file a comprehensive reply. They also, while submitting a preliminary response, sought for extension of time to submit the reply. In response thereto a letter

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. VERSATILE POLYTECH PVT. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed as time barred

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few”. (emphasis is ours) 7.10 Most recently on 23.08.2023 this court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs National Fertilizers

CIT vs. CREATIVE TRAVEL PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

13 SCC 622 in these words:- 8. The decision in Union of India Vs. Popular Construction Company, (2001) 8 SCC 470 did not deal with specific issues in this case. In that decision it was held that in respect of “sufficient cause cases” the provisions of Section 34(3) of the Act which are special provisions relating to condonation

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

8 of 22 automatically granted as there is no speaking order in this regard by the ld. DIT (E). He has not considered this issue. After examining the issue of genuineness of activities as directed above, ld. DIT(E) will also consider the issue regarding condonation of delay on merits and pass a speaking order on this issue. We direct

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

8 of 22 automatically granted as there is no speaking order in this regard by the ld. DIT (E). He has not considered this issue. After examining the issue of genuineness of activities as directed above, ld. DIT(E) will also consider the issue regarding condonation of delay on merits and pass a speaking order on this issue. We direct

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

8 of 22 automatically granted as there is no speaking order in this regard by the ld. DIT (E). He has not considered this issue. After examining the issue of genuineness of activities as directed above, ld. DIT(E) will also consider the issue regarding condonation of delay on merits and pass a speaking order on this issue. We direct

M/S. BOUTIQUE HOTELS INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condone the delay in filing of appeal even when there is complete absence of sufficient cause for the delay. We wish to discourage the tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter. The lackadaisical propensity for delay exhibited in a non- challant way needs to be curbed; as in the facts and circumstances of the present case before

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

Section 5 Limitation Act have to receive liberal construction, but the court cannot ignore the fact that where an appeal gets barred by time, a definite right accrues to the opposite party and such right should not be taken away in a routine manner without disclosure of good and a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 5.8 As regards

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

8. As the ld AR has cited various decisions of the courts, firstly the reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 348 ITR 7 , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to condone the delay of 427 days wherein neither the department nor the person in charge had filed an explanation for not applying

CIT vs. MOUNTAIN TOUCH BUILDERS P. LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

13 SCC 622 in these words:- 8. The decision in Union of India Vs. Popular Construction Company, (2001) 8 SCC 470 did not deal with specific issues in this case. In that decision it was held that in respect of “sufficient cause cases” the provisions of Section 34(3) of the Act which are special provisions relating to condonation

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

8. Keeping in perspective the statutory provision, as discussed above, if we examine the cause shown by the assessee for filing the appeal belatedly, it is to be noted that in the delay condonation application filed along with appeal memo, the assessee has simply submitted that the delay has occurred as the assessee did not knew the correct course

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

8. Keeping in perspective the statutory provision, as discussed above, if we examine the cause shown by the assessee for filing the appeal belatedly, it is to be noted that in the delay condonation application filed along with appeal memo, the assessee has simply submitted that the delay has occurred as the assessee did not knew the correct course

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

8. Keeping in perspective the statutory provision, as discussed above, if we examine the cause shown by the assessee for filing the appeal belatedly, it is to be noted that in the delay condonation application filed along with appeal memo, the assessee has simply submitted that the delay has occurred as the assessee did not knew the correct course

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

8. Keeping in perspective the statutory provision, as discussed above, if we examine the cause shown by the assessee for filing the appeal belatedly, it is to be noted that in the delay condonation application filed along with appeal memo, the assessee has simply submitted that the delay has occurred as the assessee did not knew the correct course

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, NEW DELHI vs. NEC TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed\nas time barred

condonation of delay in filing this appeal on\nPage 7 of 24\n\nITA No.- 7392/Del/2017\nM/s NEC Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.\n\n08-12-2017 alongwith affidavit of Additional Commissioner of\nIncome Tax Special Range-6 New Delhi, relevant extract thereof as\nfollows:-\n\n1) That the final assessment order in the case of M/s. NEC\nTechnologies India Private

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

Section 249(3) of the I.T. Act. The appeal is therefore not admitted and proceeded with, and therefore dismissed in limine. However, without any prejudice to the rejection of appellant's condonation of delay plea resulting in appeal being dismissed in limine, appellant's appeal is considered for disposal on facts of case as available on record and keeping

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

Section 249(3) of the I.T. Act. The appeal is therefore not admitted and proceeded with, and therefore dismissed in limine. However, without any prejudice to the rejection of appellant's condonation of delay plea resulting in appeal being dismissed in limine, appellant's appeal is considered for disposal on facts of case as available on record and keeping

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay) - Assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97- Whether where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that assessee produced